Selected Reviews by Subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner
He knew Harold Hillman; their lives intertwined to some extent; for example, both had connections with the Schizophrenia Society in Britain, Hillman wrote Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques (1972), and the physiology of nerves and brains interested both of them. Here's my tape recording of David Horrobin on 28 Sept 1995, talking on eczema and fatty acids. I haven't checked at what stage his Efamol business interests had reached.
I have a proof copy of this book (with no publishing date; net price 30s, also priced at £1.5. Unindexed though there are ten references at the end of the book. Couldn't MTP of Aylesbury afford an indexer?). My interest is its snapshot of social views at the time, in which Horrobin was entirely conventional and unquestioning. It's best viewed as Jew-naive, and has that measure of interest: read it and marvel at its absence of critical appraisal. It's possible he thought he was a Jew, though I hope not; on the evidence of this book it seems unlikely. Incidentally I asked him if he was related to Horrabin, H G Wells' mapmaker, but he said not.
I'll just list evidences of naivety; not many people will ever see this book, after all.
Race: In his African travels (Nairobi, then I think northern Rhodesia) he noted his students memorising word-for-word definitions, rather than understanding them. I can't find him understanding race.
Hypotheses: Horrobin, probably influenced by Popper, puts his emphasis in science on hypotheses. He seems to rule out anything else as not science. Understandable for an experimenter, but it seems restrictive.
Control Experiments: Horrobin quotes from a then-very-recent BMJ article Inhibition of lactation by Oestrogens. Briefly, women who didn't want to breastfeed were given stilboestrol, for logical reasons, and it worked. But then doubts arose; it was found that a placebo worked just as well.
Ivan Illich Medical Nemesis (1976) was reviewed by Horrobin in his book Medical Hubris (1977). I could only find a review online, suggesting Horrobin's book is still read.
Selective Education: Horrobin went to Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Blackburn, Kin's College School, Wimbledon, and a series of Oxford colleges. At the time he wrote, education was being comprehensivized—apart of course from paying public schools, and such things as Jewish schools—something he protested against on empirical grounds. He had no idea it was part of an anti-white scheme.
Sociology, History, Social Science, Economic Science etc: Horrobin considered that such subjects were not scientific. Part of his reasoning was that causation is immensely complicated, and conditions not reproducible. But of course he had no idea of the efficacy of large number of people in combination; Jews, Freemasons, Christians, and Common Purpose, backed up by Jewish paper money from the 'Federal Reserve', have proven very effective.
Aims of Education: Horrobin wanted people to analyse things, learn to check detail, and conclude for themselves. More easily said than done, but in any case Horrobin was not aware of hostilities to education, and greater hostilities to free thought.
Religion: Horrobin admired people who boldly say: There is no God. I think he may have been brought up as a Roman Catholic, something quite common in the North of England. However, the Jewish element in the world and in Christianity was kept hidden from him. His attitude was something like Richard Dawkins', more or less his contemporary, though Dawkins sided with US 'freethinkers' who were mostly Jewish.
Money: Horrobin recognised that most scientists were careerists, aiming at money and advancement and security. He was unaware I think of gross science fraud, such as NASA's then-recent moon hoax. The worst he quotes is science papers published under multiple names under the 'publish or perish' outlook.
And he was unaware of Jewish money frauds, as far as I can see. Or the associated problem of intellectual property being hoovered up by Jews.
War: As a supposed victor in WW2, and not being interested in earlier history, he took weapons research rather lightly. He had no idea (like Dawkins) of war crimes, or the money- and power-making reasons for war.
Politicians: ‘Only when we have as many scientists as lawyers in public life is there any hope of a sane scientific policy.’
Medical Hypotheses was a journal he founded specifically to examine hypotheses, without too much concern for experiments. Naturally this led to opposition, and in any case it was taken out of his hands, most recently I think by Elsevier, a huge money-making Euro publisher. There were murmurs of such things as 'AIDS denialism'.
Oxford education: ‘a College Fellow is responsible for organising the tuition which an undergraduate receives throughout his course. ... ultimately their success or failure is his responsibility. ... This is a real check [i.e. genuine measurement] on the effectiveness of teaching and is a real stimulus to the teacher. ... It is something which is completely lacking in mos other universities where the dons have power without responsibility. ... student agitators should be warned that any such proposal might be fiercely resisted by the staff. ..’
It's obvious that Horrobin had no grasp of the serious issues of Jewish-promoted anti-intellectual and pro-Jewish manoeuvres.
Examinations: ‘... the academic community as a whole perhaps contains a higher proportion of apparently eccentric, unreliable, volatile and vindictive individuals than does any other profession. ... At least, when the examinees are identified only by number and not by name, the personality, status, rank, and family ... does not influence the examiners' decision. ...&srquo;
Horrobin was blissfully unaware that plans for artificially handicapping some students and artificially boosting others were in the pipeline. He seems to have ignored such problems as cheating, substitute candidates, favouritism, and so on.
IQ: Horrobin quotes a study—or perhaps just a rumour or media-spread belief—to the effect that officer assessments, which used a battery of tasks, including an 'IQ' test, found that IQ proved a better predictor than all the other tests combined. Note that Horrobin had no doubts about the objects of wars etc; which seems to throw doubt on the 'intelligence' aspect.
Scientists' Motivations: p 26: three types... love of the chase, intellectual excitement ... [same plus] international recognition ... [same plus] financial reward. ... it is the science that matters... The difficulty for their families and friends is to stop them driving themselves in the ground. ... perhaps best summed up by a Christmas card ... "From the people with whom you eat Sunday lunch".'
Great Minds: Fascinating to see opinions from fifty years back. Horrobin lists Einstein and Bertrand Russell as 'some of the greatest minds'. He likes Darwin, but suggests the brain evolved for survival; not for finding food, like the snout of a pig as per Balfour, but in effects—he hypothesises about two tribes, short of food, one of which secretly raids and kills the other. As with vast numbers of people discussing evolution, Horrobin doesn't look at the very long term. I won't attempt to list everyone here; Barnes Wallis, Faraday, Helmholtz, Huxley, Marconi, Schrodinger are examples—all recent. 1968 was the publication date of James Watson's The Double Helix.
Science Education: Horrobin, I expect thinking of his own upbringing, feared for a shortage of science teachers. He isn't very good on facts and figures; there was and is a campaign to import third-rate third worlders. The present-day PR stuff on STEM (science, technology, electronics?, mathematics) is similar on the face of it, but attacked by absurd PR campaigns and in my view by Jew control of education and for example the BBC.
Note: The title is terrible and misleading!